I believe the evolution vs creationism/ID debate is pointless and absurd.

If we take both arguments wholeheartedly and follow them to their ultimate conclusions, which would be the nature of humanity and the universe as it is in the present, we would see that both arguments effectively arrive at the same conclusion. The path evolution and creation take both lead to the same outcome. The only difference being in the method they took to get to that outcome.

I could very much understand debating two arguments in which each of them arrive at a different conclusion. But to debate two arguments which are effectively saying the same thing, just in different ways, is absurd.

There is no point in agonizing over whether we are the creation of some god, an intelligent designer, or whether we evolved to our current state, because no matter which one you side with you come to the same place.

I will be arguing that there is a point to the evolution vs creationism debate.

=== RESPONSES ===

My opponent's sole argument for the debate's pointlessness was that both sides come to the same conclusion.

However, he never explicitly pointed out what this outcome is. He should do so in the next round.

=== ARGUMENTS ===

I will be arguing this debate from the stance of an evolutionist.

1. Evolutionary biology is extremely important

Today it's impossible to enter any medical/biological field without running into huge evolutionary implications. And our correct understanding of this is critical to our successful implementation of these fields. Evolution has been called "the corner stone of modern biology" and some even go as far to say that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". [1,2,3,4]

2. Society and scientific acknowledgment

Is lighting caused by God or by certain natural reactions occurring in clouds? For the public to have a correct perception of this is critical to the advancement of the intellectual well-being in society.

I would like to point out to my opponent that I have explained the shared outcome of both evolution and creationism/ID. That is the current state of humanity and the universe. Though both arguments advocate a different methodology for how things have come to be the way they are, the end result of both methodologies is the same.

I will now respond to my opponents arguments.

My opponent first argues that the theory of evolution is extremely important, that it is the cornerstone of biology and that we cannot enter the field of biology without implementing it.

I would agree that the theory of evolution is indeed very important to the field of biology. However, I would argue that one does not necessarily have to accept evolutionary theory in order to utilize said theory in order to practice biology. There are many instances where scientists with religious beliefs have managed to reconcile those beliefs with scientific ideas such as evolution. The refusal to accept any given idea, scientific or not, does not necessarily mean that that idea looses its utility, meaning or importance and in my opponent's defense, if an idea is perceived as being true, than such a truth does not loose its meaning or becomes untrue simply because people choose to ignore or deny it.

My opponent's second argument seems to imply that it is critical to have a correct perception in order to advance the intelligence of society.

In other words, this is saying that being right necessitates being knowledgeable. My response to this is that history has provided us with many instances of theories which were considered correct in the past but which have since been disproved. It also shows that the intelligence of a society at any given time is relative to what they knew at that time. I believe it is unfair to judge the intelligence of past societies as lacking based on hindsight. As a result, it would also be unfair to judge our current society as either knowledgeable or ignorant today because it is most likely that what we think is correct today will be disproved by future societies. We simply cannot predict what of our current knowledge will stand the test of time and what will be disproved as bunk and that includes religious viewpoints.

As this relates to the debate about the pointlessness of arguing viewpoints with the same outcomes, we are unlikely to ever resolve this debate in our lifetimes or even in our society's lifetime so what we are arguing about is a resolution with its position in the future and which we are unlikely to come to. Interestingly, it is also a resolution that deals with the very distant past. So all in all we are agonizing over an issue that is set in the distant past which will be resolved in the future yet which has no real implications on ether of those because the present outcome for both arguments is the same.

Consider, "Science is pointless and absurd because the nature of the universe is whatever it is." That resolution fails if you can show a point to science. The present resolution fails because Con showed a point to understanding evolution. Obviously, the theory of evolution would not exist, nor would it advance further, if all agreed that the study of origins was pointless, so Pro's rebuttal fails. Con loses conduct for starting the string of forfeits.

Pro is equivocating "outcome" and "conclusion." Yes, both creation and evolution, whichever is true, has led up to this point and this outcome. But we need to come to a conclusion about whether we have our origins by means of evolution or by creation. Whichever is true, has huge implication that affect the present.

timcooley, I assume by "awareness" you mean knowledge? What we know or don't know really isn't important because we assign importance to information arbitrarily. Information has no intrinsic value or meaning whatsoever. Humans must ascribe meaning and importance to such information. Just as a number is really just a symbol with meaning attached to it or a picture is really just a collection of lines and colors.